User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch73

Siege of Godesberg

Sandy, re image status, as mentioned in your edit summary: Jappalang reviewed all the images, listed

• 1 as "niggling" and
• 4 as "would be helpful if more affirmative sourcing is provided Of concerns (best to resolve)".

We addressed what concerns Jappalang had, and Jappalang then struck all images listed as resolved, with one exception:

• File:Gebhard von Waldburg.jpg: Where does 1579 come from? The actual source does not point that out.

The issue here concerns the date the image was painted, as given on the Commons page. The year 1579 is given on the image's frame (which is not included in our cropped Commons image), and Jappalang's final comment was

• "a more conclusive sourcing (like a published conclusion) would improve the situation but it is not something I feel I would oppose over".

I assumed the images had thus been given a clean bill of health. Do you agree, or would you like another image reviewer to have a look?

Otherwise, there were 6 supports, by:

• Nick D
• Bermicourt
• Sturmvogel 66
• TomStar81
• Everyking
• Jayjg

There was

• 1 oppose which was in the process of being addressed, but seemed to have gone stale (Septentrionalis had not responded in 10 days), and
• 2 more sections with comments from Nev1 and Axem Titanium, where we were waiting for feedback from them.

Should we ping all the previous reviewers to restate their comments on the restart page, or are you looking for new people to review the article? Will the old reviews be taken into account? Best, --JN466 01:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

When a FAC turns into a dog's dinner like that, it's hard to tell what's what, and whether previous Supports are valid. A restart wipes out the previous FAC for a clean slate, previous declarations don't count, but it is OK to place *neutral* notifications on the talk pages of editors who entered previous declarations, as long as you conform with WP:CANVASS and notify all of them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I've notified Jappalang alone that the FAC has been restarted, and have asked Jappalang to comment again, so we have an image review in the new FAC. I won't solicit input from anyone else. I hope that's okay. --JN466 19:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Millennium Park FAC eligibility

The image issues are resolved. When can I renominate this article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I suggest renominating once Elcobbola (talk · contribs) is satisfied (please list a diff from him when doing so). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Elcobbola appears to be satisfied now, so you may renominate. TTT, please refrain from bringing another FAC without resolving these issues beforehand; we expect such at FAC from inexperienced nominators, but ill-prepared FACs from experienced nominators are not fair to reviewers, and contribute to the page backlog. Please don't let this continue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Coming up.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

FAC backlog

The reason I placed the backlog template on the FAC page is some of these are getting pushed to the "old" list and just forgotten. People are slapping Opposes on them with little to no instructions and never coming back or putting things to be fixed and never coming back. We need a group of people, reviewers, bored admins and editors and others to get together and help review some of these long forgotten FACs. People worked VERY hard on these articles and to have them all but forgotten is a waste of time, effort and work for the editor who nominated the article and all involved. I recommend that we place the backlog template back on the FAC page, make information on this backlog known on ANI and AN and get some people around FAC to help out and clear up some of these FACs. 10 or so people can't do all the work reviewing. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately (and although I disagree with some of your other comments), adding the backlog template to the page will not accomplish what you hope it will. Ten or so people *are* doing all the reviewing, and nominators don't always help out-- admins aren't going to either. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

So what is the answer? We just let users do work for nothing? That's essentially what we are doing. Editors put their hearts and souls in these articles and they just sit there and die a slow and painful death. Admins and other editor can help. It would certainly get them away from the DRAMAHZ of ANI and AN for a few minutes at least. I just don't see the point in not trying. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

NH, can you actually give any examples of "People slapping Opposes on them with little to no instructions and never coming back or putting things to be fixed and never coming back"? And what on earth does "they just sit there and die a slow and painful death" mean? Do you think archived FACs get taken out back and shot, or something? Having an FAC archived is mildly irritating, no more than that; tone the hyperbole down at least three notches if you want to be taken seriously. – iridescent 23:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

PS: complaints about the lack of reviewers at FAC possibly shouldn't be coming from someone who's reviewed a grand total of three FACs (two of which were driveby one-liners [1], [2]) in the whole of their three years on Wikipedia… – iridescent 23:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Time for more explicit advice in the instructions to intending nominators on the benefits for them of reviewing a few before stepping into the fray. Tony (talk) 14:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

@Iridescent: I guess when I wrote that I was upset that a friend's FAC (which I did a review on but didn't post anything, hence my immediate Support) sat for almost 2 months and didn't go anywhere. I was also upset my own FAC (which is now finally moving along) was languishing. My line about "they just sit there and die a slow and painful death" meant they sit there and go nowhere. I just didn't want anyone to come to FAC for the first time, get drive-by opposes (I will email you with an example after my FAC finishes) and get turned off by the process and never try again. That was my fear. Plus, we just need some more eyes. As SandyGeorgia pointed out above, there are only around 10 (give or take) reviewers who review the FACs....we need some more than that. That is why my suggest about having some admins come in. Gets them away from MORE DRAMAHZ...er...ANI and they seem smart enough on subjects, they can pick something and review. That is where I was going with that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Question re victim names

Hi SG, I understand you are not enamored with collapsible sections in FAs. On the other hand, if this were some published PDF article, it could have an appendix section at the end with the name list, and it would be a shame to miss that historical information (or delegate it to some slow and unpredictable external site) just because we are a wiki. So one idea would be to have a section near the bottom, like the {{reflist}} section, where we include the name list in a smaller font, perhaps in a two-column tabular format, like the references, and this would be akin to an appendix, in that readers can skim through it quickly after they've read the main article. What do you think? Crum375 (talk) 02:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

There must be context that I'm missing here. Can you explain what is being proposed, or link me in the right direction?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Wehwalt, see Talk:Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907. Crum, the problem in this specific case is the confusion of two different issues; whether we should have article content in collapsible tables (and MOS does not favor that, so that discussion is a broader discussion-- we can't have FAs breaching MOS without very good reason), and whether that info should be in the article at all-- I'm not sure where that discussion should be had, but consensus on talk seems to be running against it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

SG, regarding the issue whether the list belongs in the article, I think that's a separate issue, and there are plenty of precedents for it in many other accident articles. My question here is regarding format and style: would you consider a two-column tabular style format, in an appendix-like section at the end, acceptable for an FA? Crum375 (talk) 02:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

If others agreed the content was notable and worthy of inclusion, I would certainly prefer that to collapsible tables. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Crum375 (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

How are a list of names, which while they represent real people, to most are just a list of names, worth including in a FA?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I consider the names and ages part of the historical record, even if it's not "brilliant prose", and external links are problematic, esp. with foreign sources. There are various uses for it, for example to compare the names when they come up in ongoing litigation. It was accepted with the collapsible format in August 2009 when the article was originally promoted, and March 2010 when it underwent FAR, so it's not something new. Crum375 (talk) 03:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Dispatch question

Are Dispatches still being written or have they, for lack of a better description, been discontinued? I'd always intended to write an additional Dispatch expanding on "proper" fair use rationale writing, but there would be little point if no one were to read it. I have to fly to New York this week and I'd rather have that as an activity than watching a dubbed It's Complicated for the sixth time in a month. Эlcobbola _talk 15:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You should do it anyway and Essay-fy it if the Dispatches have been discontinued. I would appreciate assistance in this, and I'm sure quite a few other FAC nominators would, especially those who write TV, Videogame and Film articles where it's almost inevitable that there will be at least one FU image. Best, Matthewedwards :  Chat  15:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

If someone writes them, the Signpost still publishes them-- please give it a go, ElC! New York? I owe you a response to a very old e-mail, and am finally home from travel. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Ha! I'd figured servers had blocked it; it can be hard getting messages to go through from even Moscow, let alone "the provinces". If you write it, they will publish. Got it - and welcome back. Эlcobbola _talk 01:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hugo Chavez

Have you seen the last edits that were made in Hugo Chávez article? Is there any possible better way than that to hide information about someone? I've never seen an article as biased as that one. The more I read the more I get the impression that Chavez is democrat, peace and freedom-lover. --Lecen (talk) 16:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hugo Chávez is, IMO, Wiki's most POV article-- an unabashedly biased bio, but no one seems to care. I've restored the inappropriately removed POV tags, but all attempts to neutralize the article in the past have failed. Have fun there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The reason your criticisms fail is because you have so far failed to put together a coherent argument. Simply saying it is bias is not enough. The artilc esimply uses reliable sources, and maybe your frustration is because of this: it not being able to attack and remove.ValenShephard 23:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, the article simply ignores many important facts about Chavez's rule and when it does not, it presents a clearly biased and softened view towards the subject. And there is not much I can do about, there are a group of editors (including one administrator - not the first time I wonder how some people become administrators) who enjoy team tag. They have the final say on what, when and which source is considered "reliable" (in other words: anything that does not portray Chavez as a peace-loving and democrat president). --Lecen (talk) 23:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there has long been a corp group of POV editors who maintain the bias in that article, and I alone cannot fix it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you going to name this bias or simply talk about it? Also, by the way, do not add tags to an article, which is a bold and controversial move, before discussing it talk and attaining a consensus. There was no consensus in February, and you havent even tried to get consensus now.ValenShephard 23:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Please do try to read the talk page, including the multitude of examples I've already detailed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You cannot face every argument by referring people elsewhere, off-page. If its not clear to me, tell me, don't refer me to outdated (you will target this portion of my message now) talks.ValenShephard (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Chavez has a lot of supporters around. Anyone who goes to Venezuela will probably breath the air of freedom and prosperity. With so many editors with POV supporting this unreal view on Chavez, we are clearly a minority. And if we are a minority, per Wikipedia's rules, we are wrong. Nice, huh? --Lecen (talk) 00:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope, that is NOT Wiki policy, per WP:NPOV (see the section on WP:UNDUE, specifically, "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public."), but since no one else will pay attention, it appears that Chavez won't be resolved short of WP:ARBCOM. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I am adding several, I repeat, several different sources, from magazines from Brazil (the fourth in circulation in the entire world), to The Economist, to books, etc... but none of them are "reliable". --Lecen (talk) 00:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes, but the highly partisan Venezuelanalysis.com is, dontchaknow ?  :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I've seen it! Look at its first page articles: "Venezuela Provides More than One Million Free Eye Operations to Latin Americans", "Venezuela Concerned about Colombia Aggression Intentions, UNASUR Concludes without Consensus", "The Latest Provocation of Colombia against Venezuela ", "Latin America & Twenty-First Century Socialism: Inventing to Avoid Mistakes" and "Chavez Hails Revolutionary Progress in Education". Can it be more biased? Anywhere you see it is Chavez who is threatening Colombia with a war and this website says what not any other newspapers, magazine or television channel says? --Lecen (talk) 01:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Sourced material

It takes two to edit war, don't forget that. I am removing unimportant and irrelevcant information. Why don't you explain why it should stay? You can find a source for pretty much any claim, no matter how wild, does that mean it should stay? Be more diplomatic.ValenShephard 23:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You are removing well sourced material from a journal article in a featured article; I suspect you haven't accessed the source, and you need to justify your deletion. Reading the source first might be helpful; the article was well vetted at WP:FAC, and is quite well and thoroughly written. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: PR early close

Sandy, I should not have closed the PR early, my bad and sorry. I was busy and did not check things closely. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info

It may not seem like it, but I have been paying attention to your comments. I'll get the hang of the formatting issues, etc soon enough. Thanks for the help.JoelWhy (talk) 18:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You'll find it will be much more effective to slow down and learn as much as you can first. The owners of Chavez know that, and beat down every new editor who appears there. If you're not in for the long haul, I won't be able to help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

"Titanic" needs some feedback

Hi SandyGeorgia. My nomination for Titanic (1997 film) doesn't have a lot of discussion going on, so an you please list you opinion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Titanic (1997 film)/archive2? Thanks in advance. Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 01:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Not a very bright move Secret Saturdays. If SandyG comments on your article, then she won't be able to close the FAC. Why not ask Karanacs to offer an opinion as well? That way your article will end up in a sidewalk that time forgot, endlessly waiting for its merciful release. Malleus Fatuorum 01:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/National Anthem of Russia/archive4

"National Anthem of the Russian Federation" is the offical title of the Russian anthem and I am not sure how that can be reworded at all. There is no other title that I know of and it is not like Japan or the US anthem where the title is different from the status of the song. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

But there must be a more elegant way to rephrase that first sentence or two ... perhaps a TPS with better command of prose than mine will think of something. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I was given a few suggestions from the FAC and I placed it in the article. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I seen your copy edits and requests for clarifications. I provided those. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Chavez article

As it stands, we're clearly never going to be able to remove the bias from this article. I'm actually fine with removing much of what I have posted, and just summarizing the human rights abuses, etc based on the conglomerate of sources. But, that's simply not possible because there are 3 or 4 active editors who are undeniably pro-Chavez.

Is there any means of having some 3rd party come in to try to bring some objectivity? At the very least, to determine whether the article warrants the "neutrality in dispute" banner?JoelWhy (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

As it seems to have become the fashion ...

... can you please hurry up and close my Belle Vue Zoological Gardens FAC nomination. The library has started to hassle me to return the books I borrowed, and besides, if it's open for too long someone may turn up to oppose. Which would be so unfair, as I worked so hard on the article. Should I pester Karanacs as well, or will you pester her for me? ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 21:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, no pestering anywhere from me today, as I have joined the prestigious club of Ye Who Have Had the Pleasure of Passing a Kidney Stone, and am enjoying my painkiller high. Too-da-loo! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ouch. Bishonen | talk 23:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC).

Ya got that right! But at least it's short-lived. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The Three Laws of Robotics

Hi

I am new to anything to do with FAC and wondered if you can clarify for me if an article needs to be renominated after being delisted, I am assuming it will be so, or if another FAR is called.

The article is The Three Laws of Robotics and the last action, a FAR on 18 December 2009, is at FAR last review when it was delisted.

I appreciate the article is not quite ready yet, refs needed and possible additions Things to do, but would like to know the process so I can gen up on any further actions while I prepare the refs tomorrow.

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Chaosdruid. FAC and FAR are different processes (wasn't sure if you had made the distinction). At FAC, reviewers check nominated articles (which are not yet FAs) against the FA criteria and decide through consensus whether it should be promoted to FA status or not. To answer your question, yes, you will have to renominate the article at WP:FAC when it's ready. Template:FAC-instructions explains the FAC process in more detail. FAR is where existing FAs are reviewed to ensure that they still meet the criteria; sometimes they are sufficiently improved and retained, and other times they are demoted from FA status, which was the case with Three Laws of Robotics. I hope that helped. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Dabomb - yes that does clear it up - an FAC rather than re-review :¬)

I will try and get it into a satisfactory state over the next week and hopefully can find some other editors to join in.

@Sandy - sry to hear about the stones problem :¬(

Chaosdruid (talk) 00:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Como La Flor (song)

Hey can you give me some helpful information for nominating this article as a FA and/or GA status, so I can do it quickly? Thanks AJona1992 (talk) 01:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Try peer review, or ask around at a relevant WikiProject. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Least TFA vandalism

looks like William Hillcourt, one of my FAs, may set some sort of record for the least amount of vandalism while on the main page. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Run over, amazing little vandalism and no residual poor edits to fix ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 00:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

How did it do on page views?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't know yet. Aug 6 stats not showing yet. We can check for updates later. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Surely that's because everyone was more concerned about the Yankees-Red Sox games. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

That didn't last 24 hours, ;-) yawn — Rlevse • Talk • 01:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

What about the pre-games shows!?!? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

What, watching the Cubs get blanked isn't better? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

After the Twins–Royals, 3–0 hardly registers as getting "blanked"! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Checking number of promotions

Hi Sandy, the Signpost's window is Saturday to Friday. Since the bot is slow to update the log (three only), would you mind confirming that our list is correct? I advised Dana to go ahead and choose her number-one. Tony (talk) 07:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that you check them every week. But I've always found it frustratingly difficult to determine the results when they happen. Thanks for the WP:GO link. Tony (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Stark Raving Dad

Can this article be renominated immediately, or do we have have to wait? It received no reviews at the FAC. Regards, Theleftorium ^(talk) 17:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I realize it received no reviews, but was listed at Urgents, which didn't help. With the page running over 50, there would be no point to an immediate renomination. The best way to generate more reviews is to do more reviews; other nominators notice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for catching the mistake on Fossa (animal). We just switched to sentence case, and it looks like we missed one. I hope there aren't any others. I'm glad you caught it. I also appreciate your keen eye for finding that link that needed to be moved. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice of you to call it "keen"-- it could also be labeled differently :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Citation Debate

Hey, I know a bunch of people on the Hugo Chavez page have been wondering about reference format and what style of citation should be used. You are invited to join in the discussion and give your input at WT:VEN. Let the debate begin ... --Schwindtd (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

RE: Fac for you

Re: User talk:Awickert#FAC for you. Do I get notice blacklists too :D? ResMar 01:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Even allowing for the emoticon, I don't understand your post. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You ||wall|| Me. Well I'm off to bother other people, cheers. ResMar 13:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Stephens City FAC

I have clarified which image is gone (as of Saturday 8/7) and which remains on the FAC thread under your most recent post. There is some discussion on the remaining image in question at the very bottom of the FAC. Please let me know if you have anymore questions as I will be glad to answer them. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see the gynormous editnotice on my page, and provide a link. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stephens City, Virginia/archive1 Dabomb87 (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Dabomb87, sorry SandyGeorgia, I was barely conscious when I typed that last night, so I did miss the note. My apologizes. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Lighting this up again. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no more questions; Karanacs will likely run through FAC on Tuesday. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Okie Dokie...also wanted to let you know that both images have been removed that Fascha Nua was concerned about, so that oppose will likely change to a support by Tuesday (I hope). Thanks...Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Buy me something

Like a weird monkey thing, or a random black guy plucking out a jive lick. Not ugly. Just kinda weird. I gotta admit. I'm a little drunk. --Moni3 (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Moni, I can't be certain, but I think I've owned some of those pieces in the past. Courcelles 00:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I sent that video to my sister-in-law because she once said that the people who shop at the same store where my parents bought a glass table very similar to one in the video have more money than sense. She said this to my parents. Where they then said..."That's where we got the table." Hilarity ensues for the next 3 years. --Moni3 (talk) 00:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

So how long did they keep the table? Courcelles 00:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

They still have it. --Moni3 (talk) 00:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

1) Worse than buying ugly furniture, why were they shopping in New Jersey? 2) What good is a table if you can't park your arse on it? 3) Why are you only a little drunk? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Moni I just have to know what random search of youtube contents led you to that clip. I'm fascinated .. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

She's fascinated by my furniture. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Casliber: search terms=SandyGeorgia+tacky. --Moni3 (talk) 12:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Didn't you promise me $29 a few weeks ago? I'm waiting ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

To pay off the rest of the Wynona Judd poster you put on layaway? --Moni3 (talk) 13:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I missed your birthday. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Well played, Maestro. Well played. You made me lol and now I shall bow to you. --Moni3 (talk) 13:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't you always? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

←This is the dirtiest, most gossipy page on WP. I'm so glad I'm watclisting it again. Tony (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

We aim to please. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I want some of those painkillers the doc gave you for those kidney stones. Cas, please? Tony (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I promised the leftovers to Moni. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought that highly milky things were bad as a high calcium diet can cause kidney stones ? If so then you have my sympathy - I love milk, cheese and milky coffee and would miss them

If not then here you go - as at least these cannot make it any worse :¬) Enjoy !

Chaosdruid (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I would hope that if I ever do any OR or SYN on any matter I should be punished profusely ! Especially to editors RL lol

It was a vegetarian friend of mine that first discovered the link between high cheese and milk content in his diet leading to kidney stones at the tender age of 28 which is some years ago now. Chaosdruid (talk) 15:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

My doctor just eliminated chocolate from my diet-- send champagne. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Not all chocolate is created equal. I love that dark, bitter, 90% stuff for instance, but if my doctor ever told me to avoid champagne I'd change my doctor. Malleus Fatuorum 16:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Malleus Fatuorum

At your age, would you appreciate being told to "run along" as if you were about six? I don't think so. Please look at my recent contribs. This is not easy work, and I resent it being denigrated. Maybe "twat" was over the line, but utterly provoked, and all Malleus had to do was commence a discussion on Talk:Cary Grant about his nationality, as any normal editor should. I'm out of here. Rodhullandemu 03:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

At my age, I appreciate just about anything, and I don't argue with twats. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it's just jealousy that I am able to do so much work here, although to be honest, I'd prefer the money. Rodhullandemu 03:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not much aware of what you do-- I usually encounter you on Malleus's page. I outgrew jealousy a few decades ago; YMMV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I love it when these tiffs spill over on multiple pages on my watchlist. I remember why I so rarely check it anymore. As for being mistaken for someone younger, I was asked for ID for a case of beer a few weeks back. I almost hugged the cashier. Oh, and SG - what is KS? You put an ambiguous acronym on my talkpage a few days back, and it's been bugging me...Keeper | 76 03:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Kansas City (the hottest place on earth, AFAIK). I was asked for ID last year, so take that! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Time for a username change, Sandy. Because anyone who thinks Kansas City is hotter than Georgia has either 1)Never been there, or 2)lives a good ways north of Atlanta. Courcelles 03:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Curses on your house! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

What, living in the deep South isn't enough of a curse? I'm no longer in Georgia, but it's still hot as Hades. Courcelles 03:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I recall NYC being pretty sticky in the summer (only season I've ever been there) - can't recall the hottest place I've been - BAngkok was pretty hot and humid, but one is walking round in summer gear so - a friend of mine was on a ferry in Chittagong when it was 48C and 98% humidity... :/ Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Bangkok isn't comfortable from ten minutes after arrival; after clearing immigration, walking outside to find a taxi is a slap in the face with the humidity. And the taxis air conditioning never works that well. And of course, after a long flight from Narita I'm usually at least somewhat drunk, which doesn't help. However, keep going south to Malaysia and I find KL and JB absolutely oppressive. The only thing I ever want to do in Johor is to get back across the water to S'pore. Not much cooler, but S'pore has air conditioning everywhere. Courcelles 04:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Metropolises in tropical countries are the worst: not only do you get the heat and humidity, but overpopulation, dirt, disease, and mosquitoes, mosquitoes everywhere. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Are y'all saying it's not normal or desired to think you're breathing in water? To be reminded of that liquid scuba suit from The Abyss? To be covered in moisture from 8 am to 11 pm? What gives, people? And...you don't...like it? You're freaking me out! --Moni3 (talk) 12:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Namedroppers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

←Babe, just who is the user being churlish towards you? Tsk. PS I'm watchlisting this page now. Tony (talk) 04:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

About time! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I confess: I hadn't watchlisted this page for the longest time, but the potential for distraction was too much for me to stay away. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It's fair game here to badmouth folks just to see who has the page watchlisted. Tony has neglected me for years, thinking he can get me on Skype instead. The last guy who tried to get me on Skype got the hot potato treatment. Of course, I'm not saying Tony had the same intentions-- heaven knows we're too old for that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Angela Lansbury thinks your ageist comments are ill-conceived. To sleep that deep sleep. Soft towels and fragrant oils. Knees up, Mother Brown!

Indeed. Go back to work, go write a speech, or do something useful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank the Lord; the thread has turned to something meritworthy. In England, there's little to discuss apart from the weather. Rodhullandemu 04:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Enforcing LQ compliance

Hi, Sandy. I just started a thread concerning this question on the FAC Talk page. I state things there in general terms, but it was prompted by my reflection on these two edits you made to Wally Hammond: [3], [4]. I'd love to hear your thoughts on how we should approach this matter. Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 08:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Statue of Liberty

I think the ce is more or less done, he indicated that his copyedit was done once I addressed a certain issue, though he then added another which I also addressed.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Hugo Chávez talk archiving

I noted your concern about Hugo Chávez. I recommend that you use a Tmbox or a sticky thread to summary consensus or recurring topics. --Kslotte (talk) 20:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't imagine how one would summarize consensus on a page where basic Wiki policies are not understood or respected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi, I don't know if you work on WP:GAR but either way I'd love your opinion about whether friends should be involved in the manner as can be seen here? Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, CG! Well ... there's two things I try to avoid ... global warming and GAR !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

LOL! Like GA reviews aren't bad enough!!! Just Swung by to say HI THERE, MISS WORKING WITH YOU! Have a great year! // FrankB 15:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Blast from the past! Heck, the year's almost over-- what kind of greeting is that? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Well my question managed to hit both things you try to avoid and I suspect with a huge barge pole at that! :) Let me try this way, is it proper to have a real life friend do any kind of review to an article's ratings where the friend actively edited? How's that as a try to rearange the question to get some results. As for the editor Fra you are so right. I see editors I know who are under sanctions reveiweing articles, editors with less than 500 edits and so on. It's really sad to see this set up so poorly to be honest. Oh well, Sandy I understand if you want to totally pass on this. I hope I see you around and you be well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Quick FAC question

Someone has just made what seems to me a very bizarre comment on the Brill Tramway FAC (and a bunch of others). Can I confirm with you/Karanacs/Raul that this can be safely disregarded—"not enough redirects pointing here" as a complaint seems to me to be about as spurious as is possible. – iridescent 15:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Dispenser does good work, but his messages can by cryptic (he maintains the FAC tools). Redirects in other articles don't affect FA status, but it's nice to fix them when you're able. Several of his requests for redirect make sense (for example, French language); when I seriously work on article, I do try to set up the necessary redirects, although I agree this doesn't affect FAC status. It's helpful for Dispenser to point this out, and he didn't frame his comments as an Oppose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem, makes sense now. (There don't appear to actually be any broken links to that particular article; the only redirects are the various alternative names for it, and I can't think of any other plausible search terms.) – iridescent 15:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Dabomb RFA

Are you back to nominate Dabomb for adminship. I'm ready to do a co-nom. Thanks Secret ^account 19:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought Karanacs was co-nomming? I'm waiting for her to surface ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, cool, I'll for sure vote yeah.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

We need to sort this, 'cuz I don't like three-way RFA noms ... I'm assuming Karanacs will show up soon to promote today ... otherwise, I've got to get busy! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Well you can't spell Dabomb with m.a.d. ;) Unto the breach... Эlcobbola _talk 19:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's see what Karanacs say. We need him to RFA and soon. Secret ^account 20:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Why? What's the rush? Malleus Fatuorum 22:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, baby is sick again (day care is the perfect incubator for all kinds of minor illnesses), so with that and work crazy, I still don't have a lot of online time. (For those who are curious, promotions will happen tomorrow; I've got a shortlist, now just need to read them.) If you want to start the RfA without me, that is fine - if you want to wait for me, I'll be ready next week. Karanacs (talk) 23:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Sheesh, Karen, you should have pinged me and I would pr/ar ... are you already in to it, or do you want me to go through? Sorry the kiddo is sick again-- hope he feels better soon! He's not supposed to be getting sick in the summer. If DaBomb87 doesn't mind, I'd rather wait for you to co-nom ... I've typically co-nommed with folks I know well, as I don't like RFAs that spin out of control. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about it; the baby is far more important. I can wait for as long is necessary. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping Dabomb would tend to the F and A page on The Signpost while I'm away from the Internet (Friday, probably, until the following Friday). And I wouldn't mind !voting, too. Tony (talk) 01:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's get the ball rolling sports fans! — Rlevse • Talk • 20:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's wait for Karanacs-- better to get it right! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Statue of Liberty FAC

It looks like Karanacs may be on this evening, but as requested: my ce's complete.—DCGeist (talk) 00:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks ... she mentioned above that she's already got her shortlist for tomorrow, so I'd best not start through now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the promotion. In answer to your dialogue regarding the italicization of "Statue of Liberty", I gave this some thought prior to making the nom. Yes, properly, it should be, especially when considering Statue of Freedom. However, rules sometimes have to bow their heads to the general practice of the population, and pure and simple, Statue of Liberty is not italicized in common practice and it would look terribly artificial and pedantic were we to do that.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you've got an answer for that should it rear its head :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Citation

I added something to the Hugo Chávez page today and tried to correctly add the citation. It should look like this (I think):

Cite web | title = Press Freedom Index 2009 | url = http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2009,1001.html | dateformat = mdy | accessdate = August 11 2010

But, when I do that, the actual citation rather than the footnote to the citation appears in the article. (Or, at least, it did when I clicked the "preview" button.) So, instead, I just did referenced the website which automatically adds a footnote. How would I properly add the citation?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelWhy (talk • contribs) 14:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

comment from helpful lurker: the {{citeweb}} template merely formats what's in the footnote. To actually put it in a footnote, you need to wrap it with <ref></ref> tags. See Help:Footnotes. Rd232 ^talk 15:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Tooltips and collapsible text

I asked for additional clarification on a similar issue here. Just thought I'd drop you a line because I am not sure how much you frequent that talk page. Prime Blue (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

In case you weren't aware

See Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#Nonspecific date (1 only). Dabomb87 (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

MS symptoms

Hi

After the GOCE drive where we started in 2008 and worked forwards I though I would start at the other end today.

It was either the MS article or one on some "Under 7yr old childrens numbers TV program" topic - when I saw your name on there that made it an easy choice lol

Hope you are feeling better now after some rest :¬)

Chaosdruid (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again so much! I'm still a bit tired, napping a lot-- on my way for one now! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Grundle2600 socking

There is a current outbreak of User:Grundle2600 socking. I've removed his message from your talk page, and link it for your information. In case you're interested, it concerns Talk:Economic policy of the Hugo Chávez government. (I mention it as it's new and may not be on your watchlist.) Rd232 ^talk 20:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Rd, and for the citation help above (I've been pretty busy, and haven't caught up over there) ... I'm not familiar with this sock, but I usually leave messages like that on my talk just for the chuckles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

No probs. This sock outbreak is quite virulent and needs all the antibiotics we can muster. Rd232 ^talk 22:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Millennium Park FAC

Hi Sandy, I have finished my fairly major copyedit of Millennium Park and think it now is about up to FAC standards (I left a comment with my last quibbles on the FAC page, I agree with you on the ELs). Anyway, I have now made 59 edits to the article, all between 2010-08-07 at 04:34 and 2010-08-11 at 21:11 (after the FAC started). Does this disqualify me from supporting once my last issues are addressed? I defer to your judgment. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so; as always, your support means a lot, as it's rarely given gratuitously and you know the standards (although I think you should be co-nommed on those since you have to clean all of them up). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words - I just supported. I told Tony I would clean up one more park article (Exelon Pavilions - it is short) and I will be a co-nom there. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Uncited?

Regarding your placement of {{refimprove}} on amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (this article is largely uncited, irresponsible medical articles should receive urgent attention), there are 59 inline citations in the article. Can you characterize why you think it is irresponsible and needs urgent attention?  Frank  |  talk  12:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

How many citations there are is irrelevant-- there are entire major sections that are wholly uncited. I'm checking for copyvios next. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

"Irrelevant" is a pretty strong word, but...in any case, wouldn't {{More footnotes}} in the uncited section(s) be more appropriate? The article does have a good bit of good information; slapping that big old nasty tag at the top kind of deflates it, I think.  Frank  |  talk  12:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I prefer one tag at the top (to alert readers that the article is uncited) to multiple tags throughout the article, but I won't object to a change. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It appears that a good deal of the text was taken from the NIH, but it still needs to be cited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed.  Frank  |  talk  12:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

My other concern is that the NIH is not always the highest quality source-- when I began working on Tourette syndrome, the NIH fact sheet had errors in it (subsequently corrected, after a campaign by moi). Secondary updated peer reviewed journal sources would be better. The ALS fact sheet was last updated on July 19, 2010; do we know if our article even reflects the most recent version? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No disagreement that the article could be improved; which one can't? I was just saying...if I'd seen that edit from just about anyone else, I would have undone it pretty quick. But again, that doesn't mean there's no room for major improvement!  Frank  |  talk  13:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been generally checking a lot of neurological articles, and am alarmed about the use of primary sources and uncited text everywhere ... there aren't enough of us to go around!!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

MS signs and symptoms

Thanks for your work on the article... I usually concentrate my efforts on the main article, but from time to time I have also made some improvements to this one, but your copy-editing is a great improvement (specially with my non-native English :-). I have now clarified the issue on cognitive rehabilitation with a better source and an internal link. In summary neuropsychological training = cognitive training = cognitive rehabilitation = neuropsychological rehabilitation. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 12:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I saw that-- thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

FACs

Would I be correct if I assumed that FAC promotions won't be happening this week with Karanacs‎ taking care of her little one and Raul only editing TFAs and no "shortlist" from Karanacs‎ for you? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No. Why do you ask? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I was told that FAC promotions were only done on Tuesdays. So with the Karanacs‎ little one sick, Raul on TFA duty and you without Karanacs‎' "shortlist", I figured it would be delayed until next Tuesday. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I am also kinda biased, I have an FAC waiting for promotion. Three supports, no opposes, and tons of work done, so I am kinda anxious too. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't checked your FAC, but three supports does not "guarantee" promotion. Any editor who is anxious because they want to put up a second nom should provide a link here to their FAC, and if all is in order, is likely to get permission to do so. If I have to run through FAC tonight myself, I will, but it would be a duplication of effort, since Karanacs has already done that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I wasn't looking to put up a second nom, just wondering when promotions were. I was unaware as to the "three supports doesn't guarantee promotion" thing, I thought it did. I am a newbie at FAC. I am sorry for the confusion and to have bothered you. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem! It's always good to have a chance to clear things up-- unsure why the notion of three supports crept in, other than we almost never promote without at least three. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

That's probably where it came from, I guess my mind took "three" and thought with those three it was promotable. Also, being a noob to the FAC board probably didn't help. My goof. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Link to dependency in article Passive–aggressive behavior

I am working through disambiguating articles linking to dab page Dependency. I noticed that you reverted my edit to Passive–aggressive behavior in which I'd linked "Fear of dependency" to behavioral addiction - you stated that this was an invalid link.
Apologies if I'd picked the wrong definition (psychology is not my area of expertise). Please could you relink it to a more appropriate definition from Dependency, or remove the link entirely. It should not link back to Dependency as it is not good practice to link to disambiguation pages.
Regards, Bazonka (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry-- got it ! I considered Codependency, but the term is really used generically there, and doesn't refer to any of our articles, so I just delinked it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

In re WP:PSTS and WP:MEDRS

I have to concur with your concern. I've argued in the past that we need to automate the process of checking pubmed records for "Publication Type" fields and reflecting their values in our citation templates. Right now, I think that it is simply too handraulic for the few editors on medical topics to keep up with. Perhaps user:Citation bot could be brought to bear on the problem of doing the checks, but we would need some agreement on how to indicate citations of primary sources. My recent pattern has been to simply insert "(primary source)" before the closing /ref tag, but that's rather a work-around instead of fixing the templates. How would you feel about adding a |pubtype= to {{cite journal}}? LeadSongDog come howl! 19:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

We do need a much better way of identifying overreliance on primary sources in medical articles, but I'm not sure it can be automated or added to templates, since not all reviews are identified as such in PubMed. Perhaps open a discussion thread at WT:MED? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks.LeadSongDog come howl! 19:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Ouch!

Sorry to hear about the kidney stones. My wife had that -- I've never seen anyone in worse pain. It was simply awful. Only bright side I can offer is that, within an hour of some magic shot they gave her, the pain was gone. I wish you a speedy recovery!JoelWhy (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much-- yes, it was just about the most painful thing ever (my memory fails me re: the dry socket on wisdom tooth removal at 18yo), but I'm recovered now. My only response was raucous laughter when the Dr. asked how it compared to childbirth (not sure why the pain of said is so overrated by men, but let's let them keep thinking that :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe I missed that—now I'm ashamed of harping on and on about my "plague of locusts"! I hope you got plenty of happy pills. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

That I did ! I also got four pokes in the arms and hands, and plenty of bruises, since my veins never cooperate! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I've had five kidney stones and they HURT. One they had to pull out. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Your most recent edit to Medical cannabis

Please exercise greater care in your edits to Medical cannabis. Your last group of edits, which appear to span an interval of just four minutes, based on the article's history page, caused serious damaged to its formatting in such a way that the footnotes were no longer displayed at the end of the article, but rather beginning in the middle, and running in a column all along the right side for the remainder thereof. If you want to improve the article by careful, responsible research of sources, that'd be great - Lord knows it needs unbiased sourcing. But coming to it and making rapid-fire, inadequately-researched, broad-brush edits, or edits that demand citations for individual sentences in a paragraph when simply reading or even just searching the accompanying paragraph citations would demonstrate that every sentence therein is drawn directly from the cited sources just isn't helpful at all. I appreciate your insistence on proper citations and quality sources. But if, as I imagine, your intention is to improve the article rather than to merely oppose what you evidently see as a pro-marijuana bias in its current form, then you really need to slow down, and spend much more time and care researching your edits.

I've reverted your most recent edits, with the immediate goal of restoring the article's formatting. Over the next 24 hours, I will attempt to restore each edit you made that is adequately supported by the accompanying sources. This process will, I expect, require several hours work to complete with the care it merits: work that - frankly - you should have done yourself, in the first place. I'm sorry have to make such a statement, but the roughtly four minutes you apparently devoted to the changes you made was nothing (!) like an adequate amount of time to adequately research and support your edits, in my opinion. I hope we can work together to improve this article, but I do hope that, in the future, you'll contribute to it with the care and attention to detail that the subject deserves.  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Please take greater care with the allegations and accusations you toss on my talk page :) Here is the version as I left it, to which I have now reverted. If you can identify these alleged problems in that version, I will be more than happy to correct them. For now, I must conclude I need new eyeglasses again, as I don't see them. I see 182 citations, at the bottom of the article, just where they belong; perhaps you're having browser problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is your problem, which causes an issue in Firefox, but not in other browsers. It took about a nanosecond to locate, once I switched browsers, and fixing it would have taken much less time than lodging this diatribe on my talk page. Please work on your communication skills :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll work on my communication skills if you'll work on spending more time to research and support your edits to the article. :) Actually, your point in that regard is a reasonable one: I was in the process of revising my initial post, softening the tone a bit, when your replies (above) appeared, before I'd had the chance to hit "save". So I'll apologize since I appear to have offended you with the tone of the foregoing; I'm sorry if that was the case. I was certainly expressing frustration, although I would have moderated that considerably if I'd understood how the formatting problem arose. I'm glad the display-of-references problem was so easy for you to fix; it would have taken me very much longer to figure out and correct, as I'm much less familiar than you seem to be with the mechanics (wikicode) of article layout: I would have had no idea what the "div style" tag meant, or that its presence might have resulted in your edits having mangled the article's formatting for firefox users. Thanks for tracking down the problem and making the correction; I appreciate your quick response. The frustration I communicated above was by no means solely or even primarily due to the formatting problem, though, but I'll take the concerns about your edits that give rise to that to the article's talk page where such discussion more appropriately belongs.  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

For the next time, here's what you might have said instead:

• Sandy, your recent edits seem to have caused a formatting problem on my browser <name your browser> ... could you take another look?

That would have saved us both a lot of time. As for my edits, I doubt there's any problem there; it doesn't take a lot of time to recognize enormous problems in a really, really bad article. That article needs to be largely blanked and rewritten-- it's a propaganda piece. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right that the language you suggest would have been more polite, but do you normally follow up the reception of an apology with instruction as to what your interlocuter ought to have said? As to "propaganda piece", do you find it helps to use provocative language to describe what you disagree with? I happen to regard this edit as representing a pretty POV attitude, for example, but I don't see that it'd be especially productive to name it as propaganda. Look, it's abundantly clear that you loathe this article in its current form, and that's your perogative, but I guess what I find so frustrating is that you seem to be heading toward an insistance that every single sentence it contains should have a separate footnote to support it.

We can talk about that more generally at another time, but in that particular edit you simply deleted the names of many organizations that do, in fact, support the physician-authorized use of marijuana for serious illness. You even removed Health Canada from the article as a supporting organization, although if you'd read the article carefully you'd have seen that another of its sections discusses how Health Canada provides medical marijuana to those who need it. If you felt you had sound reasons to doubt whether the organizations that were listed as supporting the physician-authorized use of marijuana actually do so, it would have been more helpful to have searched for sources to determine the question yourself rather than to have simply deleted those organizations to support the changes you made to the section's title and lead. The course you chose makes it less likely that another editor will search for such sources - which do, in fact exist.

What's unfortunate about this conflict is that if we were able to discuss it in a "higher bandwidth" way (typing is pretty slow, and subject to misinterpretation) I suspect we might find that we're not so very far apart in our respective opinions about medical cannabis. I don't use the drug myself, and I deplore the situation (in California, for example) wherein recreational access is obtained under a ridiculously thin cloak of medical necessity. Further, I'm no kind of zealot for marijuana, and the ubiquity of single-purpose advocates on both sides of the controversy just seems deplorable to me in its consequences for the article. All that said, I do think it utterly reprehensible that patients whose symptoms can't be well-controlled by other drugs (especially when those other drugs can cost more than a typical monthly house payment) don't have access to it for the conditions it has been very well known to successfuly relieve for over forty years. I think it utterly reprehensible that patients risk arrest and imprisonment for using it in such cases on the advice of their physicians. And I think it utterly reprehensible that physicians who counsel such patients to try it ( over half of oncologists have done so, btw ) or, god-forbid, refer them to a group that can provide it, risk legal sanctions ranging from the loss of their medical license to arrest or imprisonment. I haven't the least doubt that you'd feel the same way if anyone you care about had desperately needed the relief that it can provide and had been discouraged for years from getting that relief by the prohibitionist culture and legal environment that has been in place in the United States for so long now. Anyway, enough of this here. I want to work on improving the article, and that means taking substantive discussion to its talk page.  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

You're making an awful lot of assumptions here, and a more concise post might be more effective. My position isn't wrt to medical cannabis; it's wrt medical statements made in articles that don't comply with medical sourcing standards. I know the research on cannabis for Tourette syndrome very well-- this article misrepresented it, as it probably does for every other topic. Removing long uncited text is fair game-- most of this article should be blanked, as it's very poor quality and very poorly sourced, and some of the text is downright misleading and wrong, and sources are misrepresented. The issue with the div tag is now corrected, so there's no further need for discussion here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Croup

Many thanks for the edits. Wondering if you know how to force the lines to appear in the table? For some strange reason a couple do not. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't, but surely some TPS will ! Nice work, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Doc James, which "lines" are you referring to? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've seen that in other tables occasionally; I think it's just a browser bug, although I haven't looked at this paticular table. Malleus Fatuorum 01:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Doc, what browser do you use? The table looks fine for me in IE8, Safari and Firefox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine in Chrome as well. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Stephens City FAC 2

• FAC Link: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stephens City, Virginia/archive1‎

I have corrected the mistakes and left a note about one thing in the code that is goofing at the far bottom of the above linked FAC. Thanks for reviewing. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Worked on that, found other things, have to get through four more articles, will look at this one again on Saturday. (BTW, you don't have to ping my talk when I'm going through FAC as I watchlist those I'm looking at.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To answer this inline question, I bring it here (EDIT: but won't again, per above, sorry, EC). I did that to give the source, the study, proper credit. I thought it would be more professional that way instead of a little numbered source, plus I was worried about copyright sources. Also, being a noob, I was trying to smoosh as much information in as I could. If just putting "In a 2000 study...." and then explain it and give the information will be correct and not get us into copyright trouble, then I will be glad to change it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to update you on the work going on. User:Dabomb87‎ gave the page a through once-over (Wehwalt was unable because I mentioned him as vouching the article in the lede of the FAC). He posted some concerns which have been addressed and I hope that everything will be in order for Saturday's next review. Hope you are having a good day. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

As I think I've mentioned, I watchlist FACs when they are on my radar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, my goof. :S - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Long time....

Haven't logged in forever, but I've seen you've been chosen to help out with FACs; wanted to say congrats and really couldn't think of anyone better myself. You've been able to edit some of the most controversial articles that even I wanted to back in the day with better prose and references :). Feel free to archive this fairly meaningless comment if you want. RN 07:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Doc James

Thanks for your opinion, Sandy, but I respectfully disagree with it. WP Medicine recently had a discussion about increasing the number of admins active within the project, and it is perfectly appropriate to bring any candidature to the attention of other project members. The process of RfA is already biased against content contributors, and is often dominated by the regulars. Any input, positive or negative, from those outside the regular group actually helps the community to reach a balanced decision. I have no intention of re-adding the notice, but I would like you to reflect seriously on these issues, and self-revert if you feel able. Regards --RexxS (talk) 14:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

At your own risk-- there's no way to sink an RFA faster than to advertise it. Canvassing is viewed seriously at RFA-- adding that notice is not helpful to the candiddate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a sad commentary on the RfA process, I guess. There's a real difference between canvassing for support and advertising to bring in more of the community to the debate, but I understand your concern that it may be misinterpreted. I'll bow to your experience here. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reconsidering ... with a JFW nom, I don't think we need to be concerned about WP:MED support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I've raised this question in what I hope are neutral and abstract terms. Perhaps the guidance will be improved as a result. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a tough one. My own RfA was advertised at WT:MED (I think it was WT:CLINMED back then). I was a little nervous, for the same reasons Sandy identified, but no one seemed to take it badly. On the other hand, my RfA was back in 2007 - RfA participants have gotten much more arbitrary since then, and a lot of times they harp on something like that as a reason to oppose an otherwise solid nom. Realistically, the members of WT:MED are generally content creators, in good standing, and not affiliated with any recognizable partisanship, so I don't see what the harm could be - but I agree it might be worth asking for outside input. How does WP:MILHIST handle it? They've probably had similar discussions. At least as a result of this conversation I'm now aware of RfAs for both Doc James and Fainites - those are both ones I want to vote in, and I'd have missed them otherwise. MastCell ^Talk 17:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, looks like the idea won't go away. --RexxS (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/National Anthem of Russia/archive4

While you are correct that no new reviews took place for this article at FAC, I fixed all of the issues you mentioned that were not related to copyedits within the 6 day time frame. I had several copyedits before the FAC came about, so I think yours was number 7 or 8. Getting both for my article are tough because of the subject matter I deal with. This is the same procedures I had to get for the last FAC I did about the Japanese flag. I have to beg for copyeditors, beg for reviews and the projects that supposed to "oversee these high rated topics" do not come. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 15:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I only highlighted sample issues; we'll just have to hope someone else comes along to have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I sent it to the guild twice before, but not sure if they looked at it closely or not. But the major issues that you talked about, such as the lead, I got some help on from the FAC itself and put it into the article. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 15:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Ping

I've sent you mail. Sadly, no lovely songs attached...but here's a link that I find particularly enjoyable.[5] Risker (talk) 03:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

That *is* a lovely song ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Driveby alert

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crush 40/archive1. Also, [6]. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Too CU

I appreciate that you posted about this. The admins involved handled this different ways, and I think there may need to be some discussion to determine a "right" way of handling this kind of situation. Once it got to SPI, I think Risker handled it well, but probably a "quiet" CU would have been the best "right" way, if someone really had a doubt. I'm wondering why admins like Karanacs, who seems to have agreed with the connection, didn't do anything about the block, not even modify it. Not being able to use even the talk page, having to go to commons and then being threatened with a global block, was a bit of a problem. Also, give Kww a bit of a break. Yes, a focused CU would have been better [7], but Kww was working from what seemed to be a triggered autoblock notice. I can understand the error, and Kww eventually noticed why the notice didn't mean anything. Also, Kww was the only admin who actually emailed me (before I posted that nobody else had emailed me).

Sorry to hear about your health problems. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear you still sounding upbeat, Gimme :) Risker has already said (much more eloquently than I can) everything that needs to be said, so I'll leave it alone, other than adding that I'm glad the Wiki has trustworthy arbs like Risker, who value the contributions of respected and productive editors, recognize the ways that disruptive editors discourage and chase off valued editors, and operate with discretion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

PS, Karanacs has been very distracted with a sick child and busy real-life work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Crush 40/The Thunderkitty

You might be interested in this. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Could anyone explain why there is no category for all Pick's socks, so they can be tracked? I'd like to see if there was any other participation at FAC, as there were so many socks identified by CU/SPI, and know what to watch for. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

That would be a question for an admin, I just came across that as it was going down on ANI and knew about the FAC because it was listed here (you are on my watchlist). There should be a category, but sometimes admins just block and don't tag, mostly per WP:DENY. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Bsadowski1 appears to be the blocking admin on The Thunderkitty, you might ask him on if there is or could be a category, he probably could help more than I could. Sorry, I can't help more. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

You mean like this? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Or what he did. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

It's one of those double-edged swords, SandyGeorgia. He's seeking attention and recognition for his activities, and adding all those tags sometimes makes things worse. Many socks found on checkuser are also blocked without tagging so that he isn't sure which ones are active or not (reduces his account generation). You can also see the category identified by Dabomb87. Risker (talk) 01:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Risker (I saw no cat on his user page, so assumed there wasn't one, and can't add it because I'm not an admin); I do see your point :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

FACs Question

I was wondering if you were going to be reviewing any FACs tonight or if you were taking an "off" night to FAC. Just curious as I want to make sure I am awake for the review (in case tinkering is needed), but if you aren't, I can crash early. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Dream came true, apparently.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

As of about 1:30pm, when I signed on, there was much hootin' and hollarin'! :) Thank you to all involved. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Pe̍h-ōe-jī at FAC

Could you defer archiving this for a couple of days or so? It's been on FAC since 28 July and has no supports, but it has had no content review whatever. It is the nominator's first FAC nom. If you can delay action for a short while I will give it a content review in the near future, which may help the nominator a little if he/she wants to bring it back. Brianboulton (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Chavez

You seem to only scan the article for faults, wouldn't it be better to dedicate your effort to adding and improving content? ValenShephard (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

You seem not to read sources and to remove well-justified tags without having read the sources: isn't it a bit hard for others to work on article improvements in a disruptive editing environment? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you point me to my mistake? ValenShephard (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be more expedient to make sure you understand how to check back through article history and read edit summaries. See WP:DIFF; we can continue conversation if you still can't locate the issue. But if I must teach you Wiki editing, I should let you know that honey draws more flies than vinegar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I know how, but I thought you could do me a favour. Please make productive statements. ValenShephard (talk) 21:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:EDITSUMMARY and take your own advice. To answer your allegations, insinuations and questions:

1. If you check my contribs, you may note that I'm a slightly busy editor, with far more obligations on Wiki and articles on my watchlist than only Chavez. When you make an incorrect edit, it pops on my watchlist and I correct it. Doing any more for now-- in the current environment of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:OWN-- is not possible. When/if the article ever settles down to consensual and collaborative editing, I'll be more than happy to devote ample time to article improvement. As it stands, a well-justified POV tag was placed on the article in February, and not a single editor there did a single thing to correct the POV for months, until the current battleground resumed. You might ask yourself if you have contributed to the battleground or to a collaborative editing environment, particularly with edit summaries like the one noted above. In the meantime, I can clean up ten medical articles and promote ten FACs in less time than it takes to settle one clear and simple cn tag on Chavez.
2. The text clearly says a law was enacted; the cited source cleary says a law may be enacted. The source does not verify the text-- an updated source is needed. Further, some original research-- not given in the cited source-- about the largest bloc in the Americas, was also added somewhere along the line. All of this is clear in my edit summaries, if you will take the time to read them.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought your tag was referring to gay rights improvements, which was in the source. It happens. I believe there was another tag I removed which was actually sourced. But I cant find it. Oh well ValenShephard (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Apology accepted ... oh, wait ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no need for that. ValenShephard (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess that depends on your manners and social customs; I follow pre-1998 Venezuelan norms most of the time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

You are from Venezuela? I had a friend from there in school, an exchange student. He was very anti-Chavez. I was too young and ignorant to care back then. ValenShephard (talk) 22:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

There seem to be a lot of people working on that article who either don't speak Spanish, aren't Venezuelan, or have never even been there, much less lived there. It's evident in their editing, lack of understanding of the history and the complexity of some events, oversimplification, and inability to even locate the most basic Spanish sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, through that person I saw a very strong opposing viewpoint. All the political satires and caricatures for example, helpfully translated. But I wasn't really convinced. His family were wealthy, upper middle class, they own a hotel in the North. I can understand that as far as his class is concerned, the changes happening in Ve. are not positive. But if you ask someone who has gained from Chavez's reforms then the story will be different. ValenShephard (talk) 22:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Really? And how many of those people do you personally know, have known for decades, and speak to quite often (in Spanish, I presume?) Further, opinion and anecdote are worth nothing on Wiki-- reliable sources are, when they aren't cherrypicked. Editors coming to the article with strong biased predispositions-- who won't search for and read a variety of sources or learn Wiki policy and guidelines-- are not. Hence, battleground, furthered by ownership, furthered by rude editors on talk with predisposed ideas. I'm sure the "revolution" looks grand from 30,000 feet, but reliable sources disagree, as does the anecdote I hear every day, in Spanish, from all socioeconomic classes. How did crime and corruption manage to go missing from the article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

How did crime and corruption manage to go missing from the article? -- I would guess that it had something to do with being presented inaccurately and in a non-neutral manner, and backed by sources which have taken things out of context, lied, and manipulated statistical data to mislead their readers. I don't think anyone is trying to censor crime or corruption (or "cleanse" as you have put it) from the article. I think several editors are just concerned with making sure that the article is neutral, accurate, and informative, rather than polemical and misleading. If you have specific suggestions, please suggest them on talk, or go ahead and include them (making sure to be neutral, attribute opinions, and not give undue weight to non-notable events). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to make a point or argument, just trying to be friendly. You should take it a little easier, you seem to take some things personally (which makes sense now) and seem defensive, don't worry so much. I guess the ones who have benefitted from Chavez are those who support him and vote for him in increasingly high turnouts. As far as I know crime and corruption are ingrained issues in Venezuela (as in any country, such as mine). Has crime gotten worse under Chavez or just not improved? Evidence suggests that better social conditions (like decreasing poverty and increasing literacy and people in education) improves crime levels, but it won't be immediate if its part of culture. I wonder how some people can be so negative to a leader who has halved poverty? Would some rather those people were poor? Seems odd to me.ValenShephard (talk) 22:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I have a bad habit-- I tend to think people are friendly when they apologize for honest mistakes and don't make assumptions or accusations about others, such as "defensive" or "Venezuelan". Ummm ... decreasing poverty? Please read reliable sources on how the data has been fixed. And if you don't know whether crime and corruption have increased, you very clearly haven't read all the sources I've linked a number of times. No, I'm not defensive-- I tire of editors who don't take the time to read sources and learn Wiki policy, and would rather argue their predisposed ideas based on ideology. Of course, it would also be nice if your notions about socioeconomic improvements in Venezuela were true, but unfortunately, both reliable sources and anecdote indicate that is not the case. I 'spose you've seen the deterioration with your own eyes, as I have? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the sources to do with crime on your page and I am not convinced. The ones that tried to link crime to Chavez were lacking in explanations and evidence. It appears crime is high and sometimes even increased, but its difficult to pin point it on Chavez's economic policies. How could creating medical clinics, increasing literacy, increasing spending on schools/hospitals lead to higher crime? Which of his policies is responsible for the increase in crime? Your sources do not answer this question. The US state department source was very vague and general, without saying where it got 'reports' from.

I can't agree that poverty data is fixed. As far as I know, the government changed some indicators but the UN reporting that poverty has been halved is good enough for anyone. Noone can argue with that I think. In the article, Weisbrot, whatever you may think of him, cites data backed by the world bank and UN that poverty has halved. If this is true, then it is a spectacular achievement (poverty is increasing in the meanwhile in many nations, like my own and the US for example). ValenShephard (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I am uninterested in debating your uninformed opinions, which discredit reliable sources, on my talk page or on the article talk page. Wiki articles are based on reliable sources, not opinion-- and it doesn't help that your opinions are ill-informed. Yes, if it were true it would be quite spectacular-- unfortunately, Weisbrot is a very baised source, and it is not true. Read reliables sources, and try to set aside your personal opinions. I've got work to do now. Thanks for the conversation-- maybe you can update that cn tag, now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

So you are denying that poverty has halved? Are you a greater authority than the UN? Your sources do not say "poverty has not halved" or "poverty has not decreased". ValenShephard (talk) 23:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, if the world were only as simple as simple minds would have it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

You disputed sources from the UN. And you do not directly address what I say. OK then, do you dispute the assertion by the UN? ValenShephard (talk) 23:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

When you address (but first you'll have to read it :) the issue of the way poverty is reported has changed under Chavez, then we can attempt a real discussion. Of course, that doesn't belong here on my talk. And what belongs in the articles is what the consensus of reliable sources say-- not just one source you happen to prefer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The article gives at least 3 very strong sources about poverty, including the UN. How poverty is reported has changed under Chavez, so what? What does this mean for the stats? Even if they use a different number, poverty has dropped very considerably, as reported by the UN (the highest authority on state issues in the world if you forgot). ValenShephard (talk) 23:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Have I asked you to take this elsewhere? (Have I mentioned how irritating orange bars are when I'm trying to read FAC? :) Are you aware that the UN is a primary source, and that Weisbrot and Venezuelanalysis.com are biased sources? Are you concerned that all neutral sources are omitted from the article? How many UN personnel working in Caracas do you personally know? ((If you knew quite a few of them, you might understand how they get it wrong, but that would require living there and speaking Spanish, I guess.) When secondary reliable unbiased sources comment on the primary source UN data, those comments should be added, along with other reliable sources which clearly contradict the UN. Now please take this to article talk, and once you all recognize that the article has to reflect WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, then perhaps collaborative editing will commence and the article can be neutralized. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong in pretty much all you said. Weisbrot (I would like evidence about his bias which you presume because he is not anti-Chavez) as a respected researcher came up with stats (supported by other secondary sources) that poverty has halved, and this was backed up by the UN and World Bank. You cant say this is wrong or bias or anything like that, you simply cant. And again, knowing or not knowing some people from the UN doesnt add anything, its not a real argument. ValenShephard (talk) 23:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you also saying that UN workers get it wrong? "If you knew quite a few of them, you might understand how they get it wrong" Thats a pretty strong statement, I'm impressed by your ability to know when the UN is right or wrong. ValenShephard (talk) 23:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm pleased to have impressed you :) ValenS, please chill ... I'm just joshing with you, because this discussion really has no place on Wiki. The article needs to reflect due weight to reliable sources, not opinion, not anecdote, not exclusively biased sources, and it doesn't now-- in fact, it omits almost all reliable sources on many topics, because the article has been systematically cleansed. Secondary reviews of UN data are acceptable on Wiki: reliable sources disagree on the poverty data. So let's work on developing a talk page attitude that will result in fixing it so it won't need to be tagged POV. Take care, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Dabomb's RFA - tag, you're it

I started the RFA here: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dabomb87. Your turn :) I've also let Dabomb know so he can start answering the questions. Karanacs (talk) 17:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

swamped ... I'll add on later this evening, but at least the Bomb can get moving ... more later. Thanks !!!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Cite debate

You are invited to join a discussion on the citation style to be used for the Hugo Chavez page. I know its kind of trivial, but a unified style can make the page look classy. As you are an active editor your input is greatly appreciated. To have your voice heard please go to WT:VEN under the heading titled Citation StyleThanks!--Schwindtd (talk) 23:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It would be greatly appreciated if, when discussing citation style, you would place your comments at WT:VEN. The lengthy comments take up valuable space on the talk page and all editors need a centralized place to view such comments. Thank you! --Schwindtd (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The comments at Chavez are a separate matter, because citation errors are being introduced there, and citation style is being changed-- it's important to point that out where it's occurring. I don't think there are enough editors at WT:VEN to generate any consensus to change article citation style; they're all at Chavez, anyway :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

YGM

Resolved

 – Taken care of by another admin. Thanks though. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, SandyGeorgia. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

It would be preferable for you to post that question here or to WT:FAC-- I can't really answer every question about every FA via e-mail, and if you post here, TSP will help out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

OK....I have a major problem on my hands. The "Religion" section information for the Stephens City, Virginia article (which was pushed to FA on the 15th) is for all of Frederick County, Virginia. This was brought to my attention by User:JonRidinger. I checked it, in hopes he was wrong, I'll be damned, he is right. The same information for Stephens City is for nearby Middletown as it is for the entire county. Do I remove the entire section since that section essentially relies on that precentage data from the Glenmary Research Center?

You can see for yourself at the links before. The only City-Data I have ever seen that was actually sourced...and the only reason I used it, cause it was sourced.

• Stephens City: [8]
• Middletown: [9]
• Frederick County: [10]

You have to scroll about 3/4 of the way down on each page. Look for a gray boxed section. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

today's promotions

Sent you an email about today's promotions. The summary: today sucks. Karanacs (talk) 17:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Take care, thinking of you. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

Eligibility of Dead Clade Walking

Could Dead Clade Walking make a FA? The catchy title is based on Dead Man Walking, I should have try for a DYK at the time. I created Dead Clade Walking as a stub to support a few articles about various mass extinctions. I estimate that Dead Clade Walking would be no than 4x its current length. I may find more supporters than many nominations, although the supporters will check either earlier or during the reviewer that I've done my homework. --Philcha (talk) 19:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really clear on what you're asking-- there has certainly never been an FA even remotely close to that short?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether length alone would disqualify the article. The supporters I have in mind include some real paleontologists, so a thorough review of the literature should be achievable. --Philcha (talk) 22:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Miss Meyers just passed; your article will probably be longer. It's an interesting subject; I can think of a few (OR) examples, such as archaic muroid rodents like Eucricetodon and Melissiodon which hung on for a few million years into the Miocene after their fellow Oligocene European muroids had all become extinct. Ucucha 06:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Tooltips and collapsible text (2nd notice)

This here really is a pressing issue given the length of the discussion – and the virtual inability to continue without having this issue clarified. Those proposed solutions would directly affect FAC candidates if they are impossible to use, so you FAC delegates are propably the only ones who can answer this. Please help. Prime Blue (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Ugh ... could you possibly give me a rough overview of the issue and how it relates to the text current at WP:MOS on collapsible text? That is quite long. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Question on lab report question for Sandy or her talk page stalkers

To Sandy or anyone really: As part of my usual insanely extreme research, I have here a lab report on the metal in the Liberty Bell that I picked up from the Park Service Archive. There's no clear way to cite such a thing that I see. It is undoubtedly a reliable source, and it is fascinating reading, containing considerable information about what probably went on when the Liberty Bell was cast, and recast, and recast. Thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Why can't you cite it? It must have a lab, date, etc., and it must be available at the Park Service? Take care about the primary source, though? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

What citation template do I use? I intend to inline cite, except where it mentions historical matters and is acting as a secondary source. God we have fun on Wikipedia!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Nothing obligates you to use a cite template; just manually format it to follow the same style. Or I'm missing something? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think you are missing anything. It is a cover letter and twelve page report by the Winterthur museum, which conducted the analysis in 1975, with a seven page report by the Franklin Institute in 1962 attached as an exhibit. All freely available to anyone who wants to go to Philly and uses the library and asks for a copy. They don't even charge for making copies.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

You could use, or follow the format of, {{Cite report}}. There seems to be a citation template for everything – even {{Sandy says}}... Bencherlite^Talk 00:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

That works. Thanks. I had thought I had too little material on Liberty Bell, now I am swimming in it. Much rather have this problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Sandy says, go review some FACs! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Gotta finish up the comments that were left for me on this one, business before, business before er um ah well, more business.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Archiving/promoting FACs

Hi Sandy. Sorry for butting in, but I saw Sandman888's question re: archiving FAC. At FLC, we tend to add {{FLCClosed}} to the bottom of FLCs that are either archived or promoted but still awaiting the bot run as it tends to alleviate confusion and goes some way to preventing people from reviewing already archived/promoted material. Just an idea? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Karanacs and I do it when we have time or when we pr/ar on Gimmebot-off days, but seriously, it would be helpful if TPS could pitch in on that :) When we promote on Tuesdays or Saturdays, we assume Gimme will be through shortly, and adding those is an extra step. Anyone can add them after we've moved FACs to the featured log or archived file. (In our case, it's {{FACClosed}}.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course, I might have known the FAC team would have that covered. Not sure when the bot will hit Sandman's FAC... All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I have a very full day-- catching up now on what I can-- but I don't have time to go back and add FACClosed to yesterday's. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Gimme! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Royal National College for the Blind

Hi SandyGeorgia. Thanks for promoting the article to FAC. I've just updated the World Blind Football Championship information to reflect the current status. It should be all right now till the tournament ends on Sunday. Thanks once again. TheRetroGuy (talk) 11:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

You are so quick!

..and you beat be to this one by a nanosecond: [11]. I'd give you some chocolates but I have run out of them. Graham Colm (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

PS. Here's a Barnstar I made for Colin. You are only the second recipient of this prestigious award!

Colin's original Barnstar

Graham Colm (talk) 21:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, I don't want to be gauche, but you might want to wipe down that barnstar. MastCell ^Talk 21:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Graham, you are always a dear! Thank you ... I'm honored to be in Colin's <ahem, missing> company. But ... I get the prize ... now I have to go back and check that revert for any valid copyedits that may need to be restored-- most of them were EngVar, but now I have to review all of them ! MC, you have a dirty mind ... you're in good company, also :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

I'm sorry. I now it was childish that way I behaved in my last topic in Hugo Chavez. The problem is that it has just become ridiculous. Now matter how many different sources and news I bring, all of the, without exception, are dismissed by so-called "neutral" editors. After that newspaper published the article saying that it had been censored, the police invaded it (See here: [12]) The Venezuelan Judiciary (which is well known under Chavez's control) prohibited the newspaper from publishing articles related to violence in the country for 30 days. Within 30 days there will be general elections in Venezuela. The 30 days prohibition was no coincidence. P.S.: Sorry again, I promise that it won't happen another time. --Lecen (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the note, Lecen-- I know, it's frustrating. But no progress will be made if the talk page isn't kept on track (and even then, it's doubtful :) You'll be much more effective if you check the frustration, and just keep plugging away on the issues. See WP:DR for where things will be headed if the disruptive editing continues-- that is a page on which you should understand every step very well, as that may be the only help in the longer run. Remember, reliable sources eventually do report everything, even if they're a step behind; don't worry about the recent censorship-- it will be reported by reliable sources in due time. In the meantime, there are so many other issues to focus on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm not in the mood to lose time in that article. My focus has always been Brazilian history. The only reason I got involved in that article lack of neutrality was because it is clearly a piece of political propaganda. The only thing we can do - and I know it is pathetic - is to hope that Chavez will be ousted from power so that not even the most Chavez-loving editor will have an excuse to portray him is such an absurd positive light. Or at most, to oppose anytime this article is nominated to good or featured article. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Refering to some editors as "the police" is not exactly an improvement, is it? ValenShephard (talk) 22:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

ValenShephard, I'm not seeing where that happened; do you have a diff? Lecen, Chavez being ousted from power would not solve the problems in real life, or the violations of Wiki policy occurring on that article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

English

After reading the English variations page (again), I felt the page has a significant national tie to America. I doubt NBC considers their product to be programmes. Also, in your revert, contra-indication and contraindication conflict again. Also, the word "that" is overused; you put those back in. Gigemag76 (talk) 18:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

NBC's product is consumer eyeballs, which they deliver to their customers, the advertisers. If I recall my Economics 101, the "programs" they present are either a means of production, loosely capital assets, or else barter goods, loosely liquid assets. This is distinct from the business model of HBO or MSNBC, both networks that are substantially subscription-funded, PBS, which is largely supported by viewer donations, or the BBC, which is largely taxation supported. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Reference Combination

There is an ongoing discussion here that might need a third person (third opinion) input. Thanks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Taken care of...thanks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Goodwill

		The Special Barnstar
		It is said The Special Barnstar may be awarded to a user as a gesture of appreciation for a specific reason This is my gesture that I believe you perform a valuable service to Wikipedia by your efforts, and I respect the difficulty of your dealings. My76Strat 02:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Dispatch for 23 August

See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-09-06/Dispatches. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Sandy, there's not enough chocolate in the world to thank you for your trust and encouragement you've given me the past couple of years. Needless to say, if you ever need anything, just ping me. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 01:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Pending revisions on FAs

Relavent village pump discourse. ResMar 03:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-08-30/Dispatches: Dispenser and Ucucha, two editors that have responded to my requests have satisfied themselves with the article, I believe. Is it ready for publication, then? ResMar 01:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for both notices-- I didn't weigh in on the Pending revisions issue because I honestly don't understand pending revisions yet.

On the Dispatch, I haven't reviewed the latest, but several things to resolved, be aware of:

1. If Raul writes the Dispatch on the 3000th FA, it needs to run first, so this would have to be put off another week.
2. Have you checked with GaryKing (or is it Gary King), who wrote some tools that I haven't kept up with?
3. Have you added some discussion of {{Featured article tools}}? In particular, I'd like to point out that they can be added to any article talk page (see Talk:Tourette syndrome), to encourage editors to keep up with dead links, dab links, etc.
4. Something Dispenser pointed out recently that is often overlooked, is redirects. The tools can be used to check if common redircts have been set up-- for instance, alternate (full) names on bios, alternate spelling on foreign phrases, etc.
5. Has Ealdgyth had a look? Dr pda? Is the "Edit references" script mentioned (I can't recall)? Has Gimmetrow had a look? If you have time to ping in all of these people, it would be helpful.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Can't answer the rest, but "Edit references" has been included on my suggestion. Ucucha 15:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Does anyone know the tool that allows one to look at text only, omitting references? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

wikEd has an option to hide references, but not sure whether that's what you mean. Ucucha 15:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

That's probably it. Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Fine.
2. I messaged him but he hasn't responded.
3. All of the tools on the template are mentioned here, however I do not see the need to advertise it ...?
4. I've talked to Dispenser on IRC extensively. He's actually got a lot of stuff hiding around there he doesn't bother make obvious, because "senseless drones will copy and paste and then tell me 'it doesn't work.'" I said that once it's up we should post it on the talk page as a "special mention." It improves crosswiki compatibility, sure, but not being redirected to the proper section of a page is relatively minor.
5. I've messaged all of them, but again they have not responded (although, Dr Pda edited the article and inserted a few comments, which I have adressed). ResMar 18:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Mentioned your name on ANI

I have mentioned your name on the admin noticeboard with regard to reports of disruption caused by 7Mike5000.Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Incivility_.2F_harassment_by_User:7mike5000--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

A bribe-pology

For missing my appointment with the Marquess. I've been otherwise engaged. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you-- that looks scrumptious! I will get over to Statin sometime today, I hope, to look at the sourcing issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

HELP

Hi Sandy, can you please help me to have a advanced level in Wikipedia, I want to improve my user page and be able to contribute properly and to win discussions. BredoteauU2 (talk) 03:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

AN/I notice.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which your name was discussed. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Incivility / harassment by User:7mike50007mike5000 (talk) 11:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Holy toledo, that is the definition of WP:TLDR; it appears that Anthonycole summed it up well enough. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Misdiagnosis of some traumatic brain injury as ALS

Rather than carry on a debate on the ALS discussion page, I'll go directly to you. If you look at the source for the last paragraph under "Causes" you'll see that it says "unreliable source" next to the footnote to the cited medical journal. If you believe that JNEN is an unreliable source, please explain your reasons; but if you think that it's an error (and that the Journal is reliable), then I'd ask you to remove the notation that it's unreliable. DoctorEric (talk) 13:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

No, that is not a correct interpretation of WP:MEDRS; it is not that the journal is considered unreliable. The issue is a primary source vs. secondary review. See WP:RECENTISM and WP:MEDRS; until this primary source has been reviewed by secondary sources, it should be very cautiously used, if at all. In this particular case, because the New York Times got it so dramatically wrong, we may need to leave some mention, but it is a primary source, and we may need to use greater caution in the wording, or find a secondary medical review that-- unlike the NYT-- is accurate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I see. As the ALS page seems to be one that you have particular interest in, I'll defer to you to decide when adequate, outside peer review of the article in question has taken place. (BTW, I would disagree with the idea that the lay press including the NYT "got it so dramatically wrong." They certainly put undue emphasis on the Lou Gehrig angle -- I'm sure for sensational purposes -- but that conclusion, or at least its plausiblility, was corroborated by some of the original study's authors. Still, I'm comfortable seeing that discussed in the Lou Gehrig article rather than the one at hand.) DoctorEric (talk) 21:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Tags at Villa del Cine

Hey! Good to see you back (it still says you're traveling so...?)! I know that User:Valenshephard has been wondering about the tags you placed at Villa del Cine. At the talk page we have been discussing the continued need for those tags and we have been waiting for your opinion on the matter. I hope your travels have been going well. Thanks! --Schwindtd (talk) 23:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Still traveling, have been weighing in only enough to keep up with my talk page, watchlist and FAC, and probably won't be able to look at that article until early next week (also need to look at Leopoldo Lopez, where a bunch of new text was added and I need to find time to view the sources). Thanks for letting me know! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I noticed your comment at Villa del Cine. I respect your opinion and your work. You are clearly an excellent editor and I know that you always mean well. But I believe you should try to be more sympathetic and calming. Some editors don't like having policies thrown at them. A brief friendly reminder is more effective and boosts cooperation. Just food for thought. Thanks!--Schwindtd (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that some editors dont like having policies thrown at them, especially when this is a replacement for sources or real argument. SandyGeorgia, if you really want to improve articles you will pinpoint specific problems, sentences, citations and say why something is wrong. Not just make very general statements like "the article is unbalanced". Rd232 made a very specific point, he wanted some clearing up about how I came to say that Villa del Cine had autonomous funding, and I explained it. ValenShephard (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, I know you are just trying to help, but you aren't being very tactful. I think that you need to work on being more sympathetic and use language that illustrates your desire to help and inform, rather than just point out errors. Tact is probably the most important quality one can have when editing, especially when editing such controversial articles. Valen takes pride in Villa del Cine, and views your edit style as basically attacks. While no editor should have too much pride lest he see himself as an owner, you must be inviting. I do not blame you. I do not chastise you. I just wish that you would be VERY careful with your words and warnings. You must understand the psychology of the other editor and work WITH them, not work AT them.

I suggest you do not show exasperation. That is neither friendly or productive. I know that I sound like a broken record, but I believe that just as Valen needs to grow, you need to grow. Please take into account WP:DTTR when citing policy to regulars, and WP:BITE. A positive attitude is infective. I know that you if you try you can achieve even more than you already have! Thanks! --Schwindtd (talk) 15:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your note, Schwindtd, but it still doesn't appear that Valen is reading talk pages, edit summaries, or policy pages. I am not expasperated; if his disruptive editing doesn't improve, the outcome is unlikely to be favorable to him, so I keep trying. I suspect we might make more progress with The Training of Valen if other editors would attempt to help him understand policy and guideline, and follow talk page discussions, rather than making assumptions or accusations about my feedback. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Its not as simple as blaming my behaviour. You didnt address Schwindtd's argument about your own behaviour. ValenShephard (talk) 17:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm unaware of any disruptive editing on my part, but feel free to provide diffs if you think I've done so, and I'll be glad to address them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You still havent answered Schwindtd's argument, and he was talking more about your attitude and behaviour towards other editors, not specific edits. He has recently actually started taking a break because his dealings with you so discouraged him. ValenShephard (talk) 01:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Pending revisions

Just talking to myself here. I don't understand pending revisions yet, but from what I can tell so far, it's just S-T-U-P-I-D. Editors who don't know the topic or the sources can accept edits that shouldn't be accepted ... what is the point, anyway?

13:11, August 26, 2010 SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) (75,081 bytes) (rv, this text was specifically added to conform to what the source says, and it refers to US grade school) (rollback | undo) [automatically accepted] [13]

10:28, August 26, 2010 82.24.174.90 (talk) (75,036 bytes) (removed reference to US-specific school structure) (undo) [accepted by Ocaasi]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes is used to filter out only obvious vandalism and BLP violations. However, as you can see, more subtle unhelpful edits are often accepted by editors unfamiliar with the subject, and they often don't check to see if the changes make sense. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, it's kinda irritating, but I guess that's how it's supposed to work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Rivadavia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rivadavia class battleship/archive1 - I've moved the image to en.wiki, so the issue should be resolved. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Elcobbola has confirmed this. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The Judd School

Hi Sandy. Hope you're well. I'm conscious that the above articles FAC here is about to drop into 'older nominations'. Can I very kindly ask that it doesn't get closed just yet? I know that FAC is backlogged (I'm doing my best to chip in with reviews), but although there are no supports yet (no opposes now either), I think it will get there in the end. Tom (talk) 23:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Cite Style at Villa del Cine

Hey everybody. Editors, visitors, meddlers of all shapes and sizes! I would like to inform you that you are now a proud member of the "Schwindt Style" of citations. Give yourselves a pat on the back. Just a heads up. This is what "Schwindt Style" entails. (Please follow the link you will see it under "Citation style I use".)--Schwindtd (talk) 01:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear User:SandyGeorgia: I appreciate your hardwork at citations. That being said I would like to point out WP:CITEHOW. You should follow the established style. Also, WP:ITALICS does NOT mention ANY difference between electronic and print journals (it also says GENERALLY). Your beliefs insofar as what should be cited are NOT a wiki policy. I would like to bring your attention to the citation style that was being used (see User:Schwindtd. I don't really care what cite style is used, actually. But what you just did is in no way different from what I did at Hugo Chavez. You changed the original cite style, believeing it to be incorrect, while it was actually its own cite style as you can see from my page. Do what you want, but ... --Schwindtd (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi again! I just want to thank you for working with me at Hugo Chavez and other Venezuela articles. I know how much of a pain I can be. For that I apologize. I am retiring from Wikipedia, but before I leave I want to extend to you a hearty handshake and a warm thank you. You deserve it. Best wishes and good luck! --Schwindtd (talk) 22:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope to see you back once school settles down/you settle in ... maybe by then we can make some progress! Good luck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

IRC?

Hi SandyGeorgia,

do you use IRC? It appears we should talk about some things, and that might be a better way to do it. You can find me in the #wikisignpost room on Freenode (Ragesoss is there too btw, although I don't know if he has time).

Just a suggestion.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't-- in fact, I don't know how or where to find IRC, and have never wanted to :) You can e-mail me, though. We just can't put up Dispatches that haven't even had basic spell checking or review; the Workshop was where we coordinated and polished things before wasting Signpost time on them, and that system worked fine. E-mail if you wish, but I just don't do or know how to do IRC. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have replied in the Newsroom discussion instead. By the way, on top of the Newsroom there is a Webchat link which is supposed to be really easy to use, but it's of course up to you if you want to try it out.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 11:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Your response is troubling. I will catch up with you on this as soon as I have a free moment-- likely much later today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

HaeB, I hope you won't mind that I respond here rather than on the Newsroom page; trying to carry on a threaded conversation in table format for the entire Newsroom page, with no individual edit tabs, is just not practical (or helpful, IMO). And, I don't think this conversation need to go off Wiki or to chat or IRC-- I've never been a fan of off-Wiki fora for on-Wiki business.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I/FCDW worked very well under Ral315's and Ragesoss's leadership; it wasn't broke. I have been exceedingly busy IRL over the last year, and regret that I wasn't aware of some of the recent changes at The Signpost; to my best recollection, you and I have never crossed paths before, so I will provide my context for what I see happening here-- if you or others want to consider it ownership, so be it, but I will stand my ground for continuing the quality that the Dispatches previously enjoyed, and to assure that The Signpost does not publish poorly prepared, poorly researched, or poorly copyedited pieces that have anything to do with content review processes.

Simply stated, the Dispatches were my pride and joy on Wiki, more than anything else I've done here. If pride in collaborative work is "ownership", so be it. The Workshop assured that anything put forward was well written, copyedited, thorough, accurate and that all interested and involved editors in any process were pinged in for input prior to putting forward a draft for publication. Your statements about who should be pinged in for review mystify me: why would you want the quality of the Dispatches to be affected by not pinging in the very editors who write and use the tools referenced in a Dispatch? Is the direction we're headed just one of opinion and editorializing? Why should we put up Dispatches with multiple and glaring spelling and copyedit errors, omissions and errors in content, and editorializing, rather than a professional, well reviewed, thorough and accurate article, reflecting collaboration from all who might be involved in a given topic? I am finding the statements you made (linked above) very troubling in terms of the direction The Signpost seems to be taking, unless I am misunderstanding.

On a separate matter (and hoping not to offend my dear friend Tony1), it appears that the aim is for the old Features and Admins section to take over the territory previously covered by the Dispatches. Tony1 has a longstanding belief in increasing his "footprint" and chooses to work in areas where he believes he can accomplish that, but once he feels he has done that, he often moves on to another area where he can make a difference. Should he choose to do that with the Features and Admins, will you all be happy at having killed off the Dispatches and basically making a decision to ignore the significance of the 3,000th Featured article?

If this is the direction we are heading, then by all means, I will strongly urge that we mark the Dispatches historical and close up shop. It was always accepted that they would run when we had worthy content to run, and the recent lack of activity reflects how busy I've been IRL as much as anything else, but I will not be likely to sit by quietly while inferior content is run under the heading of the Dispatches. So please decide whether you want to kill them off, or continue with quality content-- inferior, poorly written, unreviewed, uncollaborative content is not the way to go. Unhappy, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sandy. I'm hoping none of us want anything killed off (and actually, I've been vocal about my reservations with the quality of the tools story). I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing that some people might be under the impression that FCDW was broken due to inactivity (which is in part because of you being busy, but that's unavoidable for everyone). It seems like a long time has passed since we had a dispatches story. That said, there was no excuse for the writer of the article (RM) to avoid taking the draft to FCDW after a number of reservations were raised about the way the story was being run. RM's failure to do so would make it appear as if Dispatches was being killed off, and that would be very wrong, especially if FCDW was not given a proper and reasonable opportunity to demonstrate to those individuals that it has not broken. At least Dabomb has tried to fill the void by taking it to FCDW himself. My personal suggestion would be to work on it straight away, as if the writer submitted it, but that you only have a few days (that is, probably until the deadline for the next Signpost issue) because you need to restart somewhere if this process is to stay active. Pinging the creators of the tools for their input about what the tools can do (beyond the obvious), the process of designing (what/where/why/how/who for/etc), and citing feedback about the tools may be something to consider. Obviously, as there are so many tools, splitting into a series or being more selective would also need to be considered. (I'm sure you can come up with a lot better than that, as these were very basic ideas I think should be considered even if this is converted under the "special story" header). Still, all that probably depends on how busy people from FCDW are this week. What I said here might not have much value, especially if I'm speaking too out of turn, and I apologise if that's the case. I also didn't really touch on the FA issue. Despite this, I hope that something (at least slightly) positive comes out of it for everyone. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Ncm-- prob is, I'm going to be very busy through mid-Sept, and keeping up with FAC is a priority, while the Tools Dispatch is somewhat behind already because of the rocky start. Preparing it first would have been the better way to go, and I'm also concerned about the general trend expressed by HaeB. If there is no interest in having the collaborative quality of the previous Dispatches-- and charges of ownership-- I'm not really interested in spending the kind of time I used to spend to shephard those articles to print. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Not posting it there was less a mistake then not asking people to review it. That I admit to. Say, since when are you so knowledgable about FCDW, or my skill level for that matter? You may want to check this out. ResMar 19:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Children of the Stars

• hey, if you can think of any articles that could legitimately link to Children of the Stars, I would be grateful. Thanks. • Ling.Nut 01:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Elcobbola future RFA

Lets do a co-nomination of Elcobbola if you are interested. Thanks Secret ^account 01:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey there

Aren't you supposed to be busy IRL? Your contributions do not support that assertion, madam. Oh, well—since we're here, how do you feel abou this? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Shoot, Fv-- nerves compel me to at least keep up with my watchlist while I'm online-- makes it easier for me to catch up later. :) If you wrote it, it works for me! I never got back to statins-- is that under control? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It's quietened down, but the preexisting issues that prompted the whole debacle remain sadly unaddressed. I'm stuck without access to sources at the moment, so I haven't been able to work on it as promised. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)